6 ms·

> These people are idiots. Bringing their cellphones, recording video of themselves committing felonies and then posting them online. I don't think it's as sim

by japhyr 6y ago

> These people are idiots. Bringing their cellphones, recording video of themselves committing felonies and then posting them online. I don't think it's as simple as "these people were idiots because they recorded themselves committing a crime", to paraphrase this line of thinking. I'm pretty sure these people convinced themselves, and each other, that they were breaking the law to save the country. They thought they were recording a revolution in which they would be the new heroes.

ALittleLight 6y ago
I don't think so. They were at the Capitol for a few hours. They committed some vandalism and brawled with the Capitol police. Maybe the guy with the zip ties thought he was there for revolution, but most seemed to be taking advantage of an opportunity to run in and see or loot the Capitol.
- minikites 6y ago
  >loot the Capitol Then they should be shot on sight. The only reason they weren't fired upon is the color of their skin.
  - krastanov 6y ago
    This attitude really saddens me. We should be advocating for all protestors to be treated with such gentle touch, not for all protestors to be brutalized the way BLM protestors were. Thankfully, this is the attitude I have heard from most BLM leaders.
    - ALittleLight 6y ago
      I agree that the comment you are responding to is saddening, but I disagree with the characterization of the Capitol protesters as being treated with a "gentle touch". One unarmed woman was shot and killed, others were maced, beaten etc. Three other protesters died from causes that I've just seen described as "medical". This hardly seems like evidence of a light touch to me. In my estimation the Capitol Police were some combination of surprised, unprepared, under-equipped, and under-manned. The police didn't seem to have any plans or preparation. Some police are seen standing aside and letting protesters in to the Capitol (which, I agree is a light touch, but I also saw police kneeling in solidarity with BLM protesters, which is also a light touch). Other police are brawling with protesters (which, I think is probably about the right level of violence, we just needed more police to be there doing it and for all the police there to understand what they were supposed to be doing). I don't think the police should shoot Capitol protesters or BLM protesters. I do think they should use physical force against both when they do things that are unacceptable - e.g. entering the Capitol or destroying or looting stores. I would say both groups call for a similar medium touch.
      - MrMorden 6y ago
        If the BLM protestors attempted to storm buildings defended by the federal police that were deployed to those protests, they'd have been mowed down with light machine guns. Had the police not rioted themselves, nothing would have happened even if BLM had come to fight because it would have been abundantly clear that escalation would not lead to rising property values in Tokyo. The Capitol should have been much better fortified by a much larger force given that the FBI, MPD, and Capitol Police knew or should have known about this plan for months. Had the presence of several hundred officers with multiple layers of fencing and visibly-manned M249 positions not been sufficient to convince their vanguard to run away, they would have been able to escalate to spotlights, LRAD, and less-lethal projectiles before needing to go with the real deal. A suitable amount of publicity for these preparations could very well have resulted in the Q Cucks Klan deciding to find an excuse to either make it a legitimate protest or call the whole thing off. The deaths would have been at most two or three rioters, and possibly a few who get trampled in the panicked retreat. That would have been a light touch; it accomplishes the objective using a minimum of force, and if they saw reason nobody would even have been scratched. A medium touch would just be shooting anyone who tries to breach the perimeter until they stop trying (which would have been totally legal); a heavy touch would have happened to the BLM protestors if they had escalated to violence. Kneeling in solidarity with protesters is fine because neither the protestors or the officer are breaking the law or indeed doing anything wrong. Letting an enemy force (and that's absolutely what a crowd of people with unlawfully-possessed guns and Army of Northern Virginia battle flags is) past your position is at a minimum conspiracy to enter and remain in a federal building without authorization.
        blabitty 6y ago
        They attemtpted to storm a federal building in Portland every night for weeks without being "gunned down".
        minikites 6y ago
        No they didn't.
    - kelnos 6y ago
      I agree with you on how protestors should be treated, but take issue calling the people at the Capitol "protestors". Some certainly were simply protestors, but quite a few -- those we are talking about now -- crossed the line from protesting into breaking and entering, vandalism, and in some cases violent behavior.
      - ALittleLight 6y ago
        I think "protester" is appropriate for people who are protesting a political process in a political building - even if some of them exceeded acceptable behavior, committed crimes, were violent etc. Using BLM as an example, is it still fair to call them protesters though they sometimes fight with police (violent behavior), graffiti or break windows (vandalism), loot (breaking and entering)?
        kelnos 6y ago
        Sure, I agree. But this thread is specifically talking about the subset of the protestors who were committing crimes. No need to call that subset "protestors".
      - nec4b 6y ago
        BLM vandals stormed Oregon State Capitol. They also established autonomous zone where they had their private security shooting two black teenagers.
        krastanov 6y ago
        Are you sure about this? The link you yourself shared shows photos of people carrying "thin blue line" flags. The quotations inside the article you shared says "Just before their violent physical assaults on journalists, the right wing extremists literally tried to kick in the door of the Oregon State Capitol in Salem". Here is the link you shared in a sibling comment: https://deadline.com/2020/12/armed-protesters-enter-oregon-state-capitol-building-assault-police-chemical-agent-1234660385/ https://deadline.com/2020/12/armed-protesters-enter-oregon-s...
    - minikites 6y ago
      >We should be advocating for all protestors to be treated with such gentle touch, not for all protestors to be brutalized the way BLM protestors were. When we do that, we still get shot by the police and nothing changes. Maybe if white people face consequences for once, things will change.
      - jlkuester7 6y ago
        https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/371094-an-eye-for-an-eye-we-are-all-blind https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/371094-an-eye-for-an-eye-we...
        minikites 6y ago
        It's easy to post quotes like this when your eye has never been in danger.
        jlkuester7 6y ago
        > when your eye has never been in danger Like the Dalai Lama?
- jlkuester7 6y ago
  > loot the Capitol Shoot, they really did a bad job of that... Looks like they need to take some notes from the British on how to do it properly! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burning_of_Washington#U.S._Capitol https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burning_of_Washington#U.S._Cap...
minikites 6y ago
I think it does have a simple explanation, just different from yours. I think that they assumed they wouldn't be punished, because they never have been. Cops don't shoot white protestors.
- vorpalhex 6y ago
  There's a corpse in a morgue that'd like to disagree with you.
  - akiselev 6y ago
    She was at the head of a mob of people breaking through the door into a Congressional chamber during a core part of the peaceful transfer of power. Suffice it to say that's a much higher bar than normal.
  - minikites 6y ago
    Now compare with a list of people with dark skin who were executed by police. Looking at these two numbers it's quite reasonable to conclude white people don't face consequences.
    - vorpalhex 6y ago
      Should we have them shoot a few more white people to match the overall population makeup by race? Police: + Shoot and kill more unarmed white people than any other race + Overall shoot more white people + Shoot and kill people by race proportional to the recorded violent crimes stats + Shoot less than a hundred unarmed people per year, total And, none of this is really surprising. White people make up more of the population so of course they're going to be a majority of police encounters, including Use of Force (UoF). Not every UoF encounter is illegal or unethical, even if the other person is unarmed - life is not an action movie where you can vulcan pinch someone unconscious. Whenever somebody brings up that UoF incidents by race match the violent crimes committed by race, usually it ends in a shouting match of who can claim racism the loudest. Yet we can recognize over-representation in violent crimes by any race is probably due to lack of resources - and we know the things that reduce violence in any population (marriage, having kids, being meaningfully employed[1]) are less accessible to many minority populations. We'd make a bigger dent in UoF incidents and crime in 5 years by just making pre-K childcare free and widely accessible than any amount of angry protests will ever accomplish. [1]: This doesn't mean low paying temporary or part time work, but either a trade or profession with longterm gain

by japhyr 6y ago

ALittleLight 6y ago

I don't think so. They were at the Capitol for a few hours. They committed some vandalism and brawled with the Capitol police. Maybe the guy with the zip ties thought he was there for revolution, but most seemed to be taking advantage of an opportunity to run in and see or loot the Capitol.

minikites 6y ago
>loot the Capitol Then they should be shot on sight. The only reason they weren't fired upon is the color of their skin.
- krastanov 6y ago
  This attitude really saddens me. We should be advocating for all protestors to be treated with such gentle touch, not for all protestors to be brutalized the way BLM protestors were. Thankfully, this is the attitude I have heard from most BLM leaders.
  - ALittleLight 6y ago
    I agree that the comment you are responding to is saddening, but I disagree with the characterization of the Capitol protesters as being treated with a "gentle touch". One unarmed woman was shot and killed, others were maced, beaten etc. Three other protesters died from causes that I've just seen described as "medical". This hardly seems like evidence of a light touch to me. In my estimation the Capitol Police were some combination of surprised, unprepared, under-equipped, and under-manned. The police didn't seem to have any plans or preparation. Some police are seen standing aside and letting protesters in to the Capitol (which, I agree is a light touch, but I also saw police kneeling in solidarity with BLM protesters, which is also a light touch). Other police are brawling with protesters (which, I think is probably about the right level of violence, we just needed more police to be there doing it and for all the police there to understand what they were supposed to be doing). I don't think the police should shoot Capitol protesters or BLM protesters. I do think they should use physical force against both when they do things that are unacceptable - e.g. entering the Capitol or destroying or looting stores. I would say both groups call for a similar medium touch.
    - MrMorden 6y ago
      If the BLM protestors attempted to storm buildings defended by the federal police that were deployed to those protests, they'd have been mowed down with light machine guns. Had the police not rioted themselves, nothing would have happened even if BLM had come to fight because it would have been abundantly clear that escalation would not lead to rising property values in Tokyo. The Capitol should have been much better fortified by a much larger force given that the FBI, MPD, and Capitol Police knew or should have known about this plan for months. Had the presence of several hundred officers with multiple layers of fencing and visibly-manned M249 positions not been sufficient to convince their vanguard to run away, they would have been able to escalate to spotlights, LRAD, and less-lethal projectiles before needing to go with the real deal. A suitable amount of publicity for these preparations could very well have resulted in the Q Cucks Klan deciding to find an excuse to either make it a legitimate protest or call the whole thing off. The deaths would have been at most two or three rioters, and possibly a few who get trampled in the panicked retreat. That would have been a light touch; it accomplishes the objective using a minimum of force, and if they saw reason nobody would even have been scratched. A medium touch would just be shooting anyone who tries to breach the perimeter until they stop trying (which would have been totally legal); a heavy touch would have happened to the BLM protestors if they had escalated to violence. Kneeling in solidarity with protesters is fine because neither the protestors or the officer are breaking the law or indeed doing anything wrong. Letting an enemy force (and that's absolutely what a crowd of people with unlawfully-possessed guns and Army of Northern Virginia battle flags is) past your position is at a minimum conspiracy to enter and remain in a federal building without authorization.
      - blabitty 6y ago
        They attemtpted to storm a federal building in Portland every night for weeks without being "gunned down".
        minikites 6y ago
        No they didn't.
  - kelnos 6y ago
    I agree with you on how protestors should be treated, but take issue calling the people at the Capitol "protestors". Some certainly were simply protestors, but quite a few -- those we are talking about now -- crossed the line from protesting into breaking and entering, vandalism, and in some cases violent behavior.
    - ALittleLight 6y ago
      I think "protester" is appropriate for people who are protesting a political process in a political building - even if some of them exceeded acceptable behavior, committed crimes, were violent etc. Using BLM as an example, is it still fair to call them protesters though they sometimes fight with police (violent behavior), graffiti or break windows (vandalism), loot (breaking and entering)?
      - kelnos 6y ago
        Sure, I agree. But this thread is specifically talking about the subset of the protestors who were committing crimes. No need to call that subset "protestors".
    - nec4b 6y ago
      BLM vandals stormed Oregon State Capitol. They also established autonomous zone where they had their private security shooting two black teenagers.
      - krastanov 6y ago
        Are you sure about this? The link you yourself shared shows photos of people carrying "thin blue line" flags. The quotations inside the article you shared says "Just before their violent physical assaults on journalists, the right wing extremists literally tried to kick in the door of the Oregon State Capitol in Salem". Here is the link you shared in a sibling comment: https://deadline.com/2020/12/armed-protesters-enter-oregon-state-capitol-building-assault-police-chemical-agent-1234660385/ https://deadline.com/2020/12/armed-protesters-enter-oregon-s...
  - minikites 6y ago
    >We should be advocating for all protestors to be treated with such gentle touch, not for all protestors to be brutalized the way BLM protestors were. When we do that, we still get shot by the police and nothing changes. Maybe if white people face consequences for once, things will change.
    - jlkuester7 6y ago
      https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/371094-an-eye-for-an-eye-we-are-all-blind https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/371094-an-eye-for-an-eye-we...
      - minikites 6y ago
        It's easy to post quotes like this when your eye has never been in danger.
      - jlkuester7 6y ago
        > when your eye has never been in danger Like the Dalai Lama?
jlkuester7 6y ago
> loot the Capitol Shoot, they really did a bad job of that... Looks like they need to take some notes from the British on how to do it properly! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burning_of_Washington#U.S._Capitol https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burning_of_Washington#U.S._Cap...

minikites 6y ago

I think it does have a simple explanation, just different from yours. I think that they assumed they wouldn't be punished, because they never have been. Cops don't shoot white protestors.

vorpalhex 6y ago
There's a corpse in a morgue that'd like to disagree with you.
- akiselev 6y ago
  She was at the head of a mob of people breaking through the door into a Congressional chamber during a core part of the peaceful transfer of power. Suffice it to say that's a much higher bar than normal.
- minikites 6y ago
  Now compare with a list of people with dark skin who were executed by police. Looking at these two numbers it's quite reasonable to conclude white people don't face consequences.
  - vorpalhex 6y ago
    Should we have them shoot a few more white people to match the overall population makeup by race? Police: + Shoot and kill more unarmed white people than any other race + Overall shoot more white people + Shoot and kill people by race proportional to the recorded violent crimes stats + Shoot less than a hundred unarmed people per year, total And, none of this is really surprising. White people make up more of the population so of course they're going to be a majority of police encounters, including Use of Force (UoF). Not every UoF encounter is illegal or unethical, even if the other person is unarmed - life is not an action movie where you can vulcan pinch someone unconscious. Whenever somebody brings up that UoF incidents by race match the violent crimes committed by race, usually it ends in a shouting match of who can claim racism the loudest. Yet we can recognize over-representation in violent crimes by any race is probably due to lack of resources - and we know the things that reduce violence in any population (marriage, having kids, being meaningfully employed[1]) are less accessible to many minority populations. We'd make a bigger dent in UoF incidents and crime in 5 years by just making pre-K childcare free and widely accessible than any amount of angry protests will ever accomplish. [1]: This doesn't mean low paying temporary or part time work, but either a trade or profession with longterm gain